I'm going to generalize a bit an characterize "Neo Con" and "Left" (for lack of better terms) positions as follows.

Neo Cons

1. 9/11 was exactly analogous to Pearl Harbor -- it brought us into a full-scale war
2. War is sometimes a necessary evil
3. The United Nations is a corrupt, untrustworthy organization
4. Saudi Arabia is the biggest problem, but we need their oil
5. Arabs use Israel as an excuse and a diversion; they use Palestinians as a way to divert public opinion away from their failed regimes
6. Islam is a fundamentally flawed religion in serious need of reformation
7. People are responsible for their actions
8. In the long run the only way to win this war is to induce political and cultural reform in the mid-East
9. World opinion of the US should not be a primary focus of American foreign policy

Left

1. 9/11 was a crime and the perpetrators should be found and punished
2. War is bad
3. The United Nations is predominently trustworthy
4. Saudi Arabia is the biggest problem -- we should go after them first (Alternatively: we should go after no one)
5. Arabs would make peace if Israel would just [fill in the blanks]
6. Islam is a religion of peace
7. "Oppressed people" [them] are victims of their circumstance, "opressors" [us] are ourselves responsible for the actions of the oppressed
8. Killing terrorists will breed more terrorists without end
9. Most people in the world now revile the United States and hate our pre-eminence; a major objective of our foreign policy should rectify this

There are an infinity of alternative issues and corrolaries like "France, Germany, et. al. are Old Europe and we do not let them inhibit our necessary actions" vs "We should most always first get agreement and participation by traditional EU countries before acting"

-p (Stimulated by a DenBeste article)